For “the Pergamum altar,” see Pergamon in this journal.
See also . . .
A weblog reports Chris Rock's remarks
on Saturday Night Live this past weekend:
"It’s America, we commercialize everything.
Look at what we did to Christmas.
Christmas. Christmas is Jesus’ birthday.
It’s Jesus’ birthday. Now, I don’t know Jesus
but from what I’ve read, Jesus is the least
materialistic person to ever roam the earth.
No bling on Jesus.
Jesus kept a low profile and we turned his
birthday into the most materialistic day of the
year. Matter of fact, we have the Jesus birthday
season. It’s a whole season of materialism.
Then, at the end of the Jesus birthday season
we have the nerve to have an economist come
on TV and tell you how horrible the Jesus birthday
season was this year. Oh, we had a horrible Jesus’
birthday this year. Hopefully, business will pick up
by his Crucifixion.”
Related music and image:
"Show us the way to the next little girl …"
Natalie Wood in "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947)
Related non-materialistic meditations:
The Rhetoric of Abstract Concepts and Gods and Giants.
[Update of Sunday morning, July 12, 2020 —
This July 2 post was suggested in part by the July 1 post Magic Child
and in part by the Sept. 15, 1984, date in the image below. For more
details about that date, possibly the death date of author Richard
Brautigan, see "The Life and Death of Richard Brautigan," by
Lawrence Wright, in Rolling Stone on April 11, 1985.
From that article:
Marcia called him the next night [Sept. 15, 1984]
in Bolinas. He asked if she liked his mind. "I said,
‘Yes, Richard, I like your mind. You have the ability
to jump in and out of spaces. It’s not linear thinking;
it’s exciting, catalytic, random thinking.’ "
Such thinking, though interesting, is not recommended for the
general public. Sept. 15, 1984, was perhaps Brautigan's last day alive.]
* See Maxwell in posts tagged Gods and Giants.
we are just like a couple of tots…
— Sinatra
Born 1973 in Bergen. Lives and works in Oslo.
Education
2000 – 2004 National Academy of Fine Arts, Oslo
1998 – 2000 Strykejernet Art School, Oslo, NO
1995 – 1998 Philosophy, University of Bergen
University of Bergen—
It might therefore seem that the idea of digital and analogical systems as rival fundaments to human experience is a new suggestion and, like digital technology, very modern. In fact, however, the idea is as old as philosophy itself (and may be much older). In his Sophist, Plato sets out the following ‘battle’ over the question of ‘true reality’: What we shall see is something like a battle of gods and giants going on between them over their quarrel about reality [γιγαντομαχία περì της ουσίας] ….One party is trying to drag everything down to earth out of heaven and the unseen, literally grasping rocks and trees in their hands, for they lay hold upon every stock and stone and strenuously affirm that real existence belongs only to that which can be handled and offers resistance to the touch. They define reality as the same thing as body, and as soon as one of the opposite party asserts that anything without a body is real, they are utterly contemptuous and will not listen to another word. (…) Their adversaries are very wary in defending their position somewhere in the heights of the unseen, maintaining with all their force that true reality [την αληθινήν ουσίαν] consists in certain intelligible and bodiless forms. In the clash of argument they shatter and pulverize those bodies which their opponents wield, and what those others allege to be true reality they call, not real being, but a sort of moving process of becoming. On this issue an interminable battle is always going on between the two camps [εν μέσω δε περι ταυτα απλετος αμφοτέρων μάχη τις (…) αει συνέστηκεν]. (…) It seems that only one course is open to the philosopher who values knowledge and truth above all else. He must refuse to accept from the champions of the forms the doctrine that all reality is changeless [and exclusively immaterial], and he must turn a deaf ear to the other party who represent reality as everywhere changing [and as only material]. Like a child begging for 'both', he must declare that reality or the sum of things is both at once [το όν τε και το παν συναμφότερα] (Sophist 246a-249d). The gods and the giants in Plato’s battle present two varieties of the analog position. Each believes that ‘true reality’ is singular, that "real existence belongs only to" one side or other of competing possibilities. For them, difference and complexity are secondary and, as secondary, deficient in respect to truth, reality and being (την αληθινήν ουσίαν, το όν τε και το παν). Difference and complexity are therefore matters of "interminable battle" whose intended end for each is, and must be (given their shared analogical logic), only to eradicate the other. The philosophical child, by contrast, holds to ‘both’ and therefore represents the digital position where the differentiated two yet belong originally together. Here difference, complexity and systematicity are primary and exemplary. It is an unfailing mark of the greatest thinkers of the tradition, like Plato, that they recognize the digital possibility and therefore recognize the principal difference of it from analog possibilities.
— Cameron McEwen, "The Digital Wittgenstein," |
* See that phrase in this journal.
Battle of Gods and Giants,
Part III:
The Invisible Made Visible
"Leon Golub, an American painter of expressionistic, heroic-scale figures that reflect dire modern political conditions, died on Sunday in Manhattan. He was 82….
In the 1960's he produced a series, called 'Gigantomachies,' of battling, wrestling figures. They were based on classical models, including the Hellenistic Altar of Pergamon. But there was nothing idealized about them."
The Hellenistic Altar of Pergamon,
from Battle of Gods and Giants:
Golub's New York Times obituary concludes with a quote from a 1991 interview:
"Asked about his continuing and future goal he said, 'To head into real!'"
From Tuesday's Battle of Gods and Giants:
This sort of mathematics illustrates the invisible "form" or "idea" behind the visible two-color pattern. Hence it exemplifies, in a way, the conflict described by Plato between those who say that "real existence belongs only to that which can be handled" and those who say that "true reality consists in certain intelligible and bodiless forms."
Perhaps, if Golub is fortunate enough to escape from the afterlife version of Plato's Cave, he will also be fortunate enough to enter Purgatory, where there awaits a course in reality, in the form of…
Battle of Gods and Giants,
Part II:
Wonders of the Invisible World
Yesterday at about 5 PM I added a section titled "Invariants" to the 3:01 PM entry Battle of Gods and Giants. Within this added section was the sentence
"This sort of mathematics illustrates the invisible 'form' or 'idea' behind the visible two-color pattern."
Now, at about 5 AM, I see in today's New York Times a review of a book titled The Invisible Century, by Richard Panek. The reviewer, David Gelernter, says the "invisible" of the title refers to
"science that is done not by studying what you can see…. but by repairing instead to the privacy of your own mind, with the shades drawn and the lights off: the inner sanctum of intellectual history."
The book concerns the research of Einstein and Freud. Gelernter says
"As Mr. Panek usefully notes, Einstein himself first called his work an 'invariant theory,' not a 'relativity theory.' Einstein does not say 'everything is relative,' or anything remotely like it."
The reader who clicks on the word "invariants" in Battle of Gods and Giants will receive the same information.
Gelernter's conclusion:
"The Invisible Century is a complex book about a complex topic. Mr. Panek's own topic is not so much invisibility, it seems to me, as a different kind of visibility, centering on mind-pictures revealed by introspection, which are just as sharp and clear as (for example) the mind-music Beethoven heard when he was deaf.
Inner visibility is a fascinating topic…."
As is synchronicity, a topic in the work of a greater man than Freud– Carl Jung. The above remarks may be viewed as "synchronicity made visible."
All of this was, of course, foreshadowed in my web page "A Mathematician's Aesthetics" of August 2000:
C. G. Jung on Archetypes "All the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes. This is particularly true of religious ideas, but the central concepts of science, philosophy, and ethics are no exception to this rule. In their present form they are variants of archetypal ideas, created by consciously applying and adapting these ideas to reality. For it is the function of consciousness not only to recognize and assimilate the external world through the gateway of the senses, but to translate into visible reality the world within us." — Carl Gustav Jung, "The Structure of the Psyche" (1927), in Collected Works Vol. 8, Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, P. 342 Paul Klee on Visible Reality: "Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes visible…. My aim is always to get hold of the magic of reality and to transfer this reality into painting– to make the invisible visible through reality. It may sound paradoxical, but it is, in fact, reality which forms the mystery of our existence." — Paul Klee, "Creative Credo" from The Inward Vision: Watercolors, Drawings, Writings. Abrams, not dated; published c. 1958.
Wallace Stevens on
"These forms are visible
— Wallace Stevens, "The Owl in the Sarcophagus," (first publ. 1950) in |
Battle of Gods and Giants
In checking the quotations from Dante in the previous entry, I came across the intriguing site Gigantomachia:
"A gigantomachia or primordial battle between the gods has been retold in myth, cult, art and theory for thousands of years, from the Egyptians to Heidegger. This site will present the history of the theme. But it will do so in an attempt to raise the question of the contemporary relevance of it. Does the gigantomachia take place today? Where? When? In what relation to you and me?"
Perhaps atop the Empire State Building?
(See An Affair to Remember and Empire State Building to Honor Fay Wray.)
Perhaps in relation to what the late poet Donald Justice called "the wood within"?
Perhaps in relation to T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" and the Feast of the Metamorphosis?
Or perhaps not.
Perhaps at Pergamon:
Perhaps at Pergamon Press:
"What modern painters are trying to do,
if they only knew it, is paint invariants."
— James J. Gibson in Leonardo
(Vol. 11, pp. 227-235.
Pergamon Press Ltd., 1978)
An example of invariant structure:
The three line diagrams above result from the three partitions, into pairs of 2-element sets, of the 4-element set from which the entries of the bottom colored figure are drawn. Taken as a set, these three line diagrams describe the structure of the bottom colored figure. After coordinatizing the figure in a suitable manner, we find that this set of three line diagrams is invariant under the group of 16 binary translations acting on the colored figure.
A more remarkable invariance — that of symmetry
This sort of mathematics illustrates the invisible "form" or "idea" behind the visible two-color pattern. Hence it exemplifies, in a way, the conflict described by Plato between those who say that "real existence belongs only to that which can be handled" and those who say that "true reality consists in certain intelligible and bodiless forms."
For further details, see a section on Plato in the Gigantomachia site.
Powered by WordPress